Vekn Rules as they Stand

I have decided to stop lurking and contribute to this wonderful resource. Virgin poster, be nice. The majority of VEKN rules are set up to maintain the predator-prey relationship, and at the same time requiring players to play to win. However, I find that there are very few instances where a judge could over-rule a play made by a player. In fact, the only question a judge could ask would be, "Are you playing to win?". This is because the judge can't possibly have as much knowledge about the game as the player. If an action were to be disallowed how do you resolve a player leaving the table? Rules are set up to govern an event of game, while floor rules are an extension of those and should outline consquences should those be violated. I believe that the rules reguarding play-to-win are currently un-enforcable. No action can be prohibited if a player "says" she is playing to win. Player may also make statements as to the motivations of their actions that are untrue, in order influence the game. It may be in someones interest to put another player on "tilt" by suggesting their motivations are for out of game reasons. This kind of legal play merely muddies the water when discussing the play in question. Further, a player can say she can not win, or get additional VPs, and thus may lose as they choose- allowing whatever play they wish. Do we need the lose as you choose clause? Does the game benifit from this cop-out, or would we be better to insist people play to win for the entire game? We can't regulate proper play, but by allowing this out players can justify any action they wish to take. In addition it has been ruled that prize support may be taken into account for deals, self ousting or whatever. This ruling must be reversed, how is prize support any different from cash, favors, hes my buddy, I want to get a ride home cause he brought me here. If anything outside the game, prize support, is introduced as a legal consideration for in game decisions then the line is blurred. It is interesting that prize support can be considered for play, but tournament position is not allowed to be considered. I can't make deal for one VP that gets me into the finals, but I an give a guy half my box of boosters to roll for me. Luckily the lastest batch of prize support was such crap that no-one wanted it and thus deals were not an issue. Would like to here specific instances of judges over-ruling actions, or other pertinent ruling in the past that may not have been posted. Thanks for the time, Matt When is VTES con? Do we need to pay $60 for badges when to only thing we are going to do is play cards?

Matt Guinn wrote: > I have decided to stop lurking and contribute to this wonderful > resource. > Virgin poster, be nice. > > The majority of VEKN rules are set up to maintain the predator-prey > relationship, and at the same time requiring players to play to win. > However, I find that there are very few instances where a judge could > over-rule a play made by a player. In fact, the only question a judge > could ask would be, "Are you playing to win?". This is because the > judge can't possibly have as much knowledge about the game as the > player. Which is why the judge is called upon to use judgment. > > If an action were to be disallowed how do you resolve a player leaving > the table? The same way you would if the player had to leave for other reasons (sudden illness or other emergency, disqualification for other infractions, etc.) > No action can be prohibited if a player "says" she is playing to win. Incorrect. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On 15 Oct 2003, Matt Guinn wrote: > I have decided to stop lurking and contribute to this wonderful > resource. Nice to see you posting, Matt. > Virgin poster, be nice. |-|4 |-|4!!! U r /\/\y 8!7c|-|, |\|008!!! > The majority of VEKN rules are set up to maintain the predator-prey > relationship, and at the same time requiring players to play to win. > However, I find that there are very few instances where a judge could > over-rule a play made by a player. In fact, the only question a judge > could ask would be, "Are you playing to win?". This is because the > judge can't possibly have as much knowledge about the game as the > player. You are imagining that the judge has to prove he's right in order to take action. He doesn't, anymore than a real judge needs omniscience to act. They're called "judges", not "logicians". > If an action were to be disallowed how do you resolve a player leaving > the table? You wing it. Feel free to propose guidelines; I'd like some, even though I've never actually had to deal with this. > Rules are set up to govern an event of game, You've been in the Buckminster Fuller again, haven't you? ;) > while floor rules are an > extension of those and should outline consquences should those be > violated. I guess you're talking about rules vs. tournament rules here, but I'm not sure. > I believe that the rules reguarding play-to-win are currently > un-enforcable. They are enforcable, but not in the agent-less way that you would seem to like. I mean, I would like it too, since it's much easier to say "2 + 2 = 4, so you're out" than it is to look someone in the eye and say "It's my belief that you are a fuckhead, so leave my game." I take great comfort in the fact that this has never actually been an issue for me, so I don't worry about it much. > No action can be prohibited if a player "says" she is playing to win. Sure it can, watch: "I prohibit you." See? I'm kind of joking around, sure, but the point I'm making is serious: you can't remove the "judgement" from judging. Sometimes judges are wrong. In the real world, sometimes people die because judges are wrong, but we don't forego a legal system for lack of perfect omniscience. It's just getting by with the best that's humanly possible. A Jyhad tournament is no different. > Player may also make statements as to the motivations of their actions > that are untrue, in order influence the game. It may be in someones > interest to put another player on "tilt" by suggesting their > motivations are for out of game reasons. This kind of legal play > merely muddies the water when discussing the play in question. Yeah, but you have to protect that kind of play. I don't want to see it restricted, anyway. > Further, a player can say she can not win, or get additional VPs, and > thus may lose as they choose- allowing whatever play they wish. Do we > need the lose as you choose clause? Does the game benifit from this > cop-out, or would we be better to insist people play to win for the > entire game? We can't regulate proper play, but by allowing this out > players can justify any action they wish to take. I don't see the benefit of "lose as you choose", however. If there is a benefit, I believe the drawbacks outweigh it. Matt and I both have some personal experience with some extreme "lose as you choose", though, so we may be biased. I can't recall it actually spoiling any tournament games I've played in or judged, though. > In addition it has been ruled that prize support may be taken into > account for deals, self ousting or whatever. This ruling must be > reversed, how is prize support any different from cash, favors, hes my > buddy, I want to get a ride home cause he brought me here. If > anything outside the game, prize support, is introduced as a legal > consideration for in game decisions then the line is blurred. Dumb rule. I don't see the benefit to the game for this, either, and every player I've discussed it with can't believe it's legal, for whatever that's worth. > Luckily the lastest batch of prize support was such crap that no-one > wanted it and thus deals were not an issue. The demise of prize-support-that's-worth-a-damn may be a good thing, though. I've held a lot fewer tournaments due to not planning things two months in advance, but at the same time wanting free stuff to give out as compensation for people leaving their house-wombs. If I can get people used to paying $5 to play, we could be doing tournaments right and left. > Would like to here specific instances of judges over-ruling actions, > or other pertinent ruling in the past that may not have been posted. Well, there was this one guy I gave a warning to for stalling one time..... ;) David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

wm...@mail.com (Matt Guinn) wrote in message news:<263773d7.0310...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree that prize support shouldnt be included in deals . Its the same as cash . Mechadick

wm...@mail.com (Matt Guinn) wrote in message news:<263773d7.0310...@posting.google.com>... > > If an action were to be disallowed how do you resolve a player leaving > the table? > I'd like to see an answer to this if not just for the case of a player in a final having to leave early due to other requirements on his time. I had a player do that in my storyline final and I ruled that his pool remained as is and all other cards were removed from play. G

[ quoted text not captured ] The judge makes whatever arrangements are necessary to minimize the effect on the remaining players, wether that be an immediate award of a VP (or some fraction thereof) and/or some amount of pool, or a pile of pool to "bleed" out, or a proxy player, or whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matt Guinn" <wm...@mail.com> wrote in message news:263773d7.0310...@posting.google.com... > I have decided to stop lurking and contribute to this wonderful > resource. > Virgin poster, be nice. Hi Matt! > The majority of VEKN rules are set up to maintain the predator-prey > relationship, and at the same time requiring players to play to win. > However, I find that there are very few instances where a judge could > over-rule a play made by a player. In fact, the only question a judge > could ask would be, "Are you playing to win?". This is because the > judge can't possibly have as much knowledge about the game as the > player. Yeah, as David and LSJ have pointed out, the judge can do what he or she wants. They don't have to prove that they're right. It definitely could get sticky if they want to keep a player in the game while not allowing the player to play as he/she wants, though. > If an action were to be disallowed how do you resolve a player leaving > the table? That's up to the judge. No one said judging was easy. :-) You might leave a "null player" in that position, with pool but no other permanents, or remove the position entirely with no award of VP or pool, or something else. > Rules are set up to govern an event of game, while floor rules are an > extension of those and should outline consquences should those be > violated. > > I believe that the rules reguarding play-to-win are currently > un-enforcable. > No action can be prohibited if a player "says" she is playing to win. It can, but prohibiting a player's actions may not make the player any more cooperative, yeah. > Player may also make statements as to the motivations of their actions > that are untrue, in order influence the game. It may be in someones > interest to put another player on "tilt" by suggesting their > motivations are for out of game reasons. This kind of legal play > merely muddies the water when discussing the play in question. Interesting point. Given that players cannot actually legally act on out-of-game considerations, they should perhaps refrain from claiming that they are doing so. If the judge is called in, the judge will have to decide whether the player is in fact doing things for out-of-game reasons, or was lying about having out-of-game motivation to influence the other players (waters muddied by the possibility that they are now lying to the judge in the claim that they were never really doing things for out-of-game reasons). > Further, a player can say she can not win, or get additional VPs, and > thus may lose as they choose- allowing whatever play they wish. Do we > need the lose as you choose clause? Does the game benifit from this > cop-out, or would we be better to insist people play to win for the > entire game? We can't regulate proper play, but by allowing this out > players can justify any action they wish to take. We do insist that players play to win for the entire game. You must play to win as long as you have a reasonable (in the opinion of the judge) chance of doing so. If you cannot win, you must try to earn as many VPs as you can. You do have the choice of earning your maximum VPs in any way that you see fit. That's not a justification for throwing games. It is, again, a judgement call, but in my opinion, it's unusual for a player to have no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs while he or she still has the resources to substantially disrupt the game. To me, this again points to the idea that VTES simply cannot be played in too-competitive a fashion. You have to be able to rely on people to be good sports and play in the spirit of the game. If they're not willing to do this, the game won't be fun and no amount of judging will make it fun. You could try ejecting people for poor sportsmanship, but that's not exactly a friendly solution or likely to make people happy with the outcome. > In addition it has been ruled that prize support may be taken into > account for deals, self ousting or whatever. This ruling must be > reversed, how is prize support any different from cash, favors, hes my > buddy, I want to get a ride home cause he brought me here. If > anything outside the game, prize support, is introduced as a legal > consideration for in game decisions then the line is blurred. It's not a ruling, it's in the VEKN tournament rules. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html Section 161, Cheating - Bribery. You're right, it's weird and probably not right. I think this is one of those things that was carried over from the DCI Magic tournament rules and is probably not appropriate to VTES tournament play. > Would like to here specific instances of judges over-ruling actions, > or other pertinent ruling in the past that may not have been posted. I can't off the top of my head think of any actual cases where a judge has intervened in a game in this way. Normally the VTES tournament games I've actually seen have had enough good sportsmanship that it hasn't become a problem. Anyone else have examples? It's certainly possible for it to become a problem. Josh yay, new prize support system soon!

wm...@mail.com (Matt Guinn) wrote in message news:<263773d7.0310...@posting.google.com>... > The majority of VEKN rules are set up to maintain the predator-prey > relationship, and at the same time requiring players to play to win. > However, I find that there are very few instances where a judge could > over-rule a play made by a player. In fact, the only question a judge > could ask would be, "Are you playing to win?". This is because the > judge can't possibly have as much knowledge about the game as the > player. That is sensable. The judge can not know deck lists or player conceptions of decklists. The judge is forced to take a snap shot of the game and extract some meaningful information from it while the player was there the whole time. > If an action were to be disallowed how do you resolve a player leaving > the table? The rule for that is highly unreasonable. I believe if a player takes his cards and goes home no vps are awarded and the his predator-prey now have a new relationship. This prevents certain types of collusion and facilitates other types. > Rules are set up to govern an event of game, while floor rules are an > extension of those and should outline consquences should those be > violated. > > I believe that the rules reguarding play-to-win are currently > un-enforcable. > No action can be prohibited if a player "says" she is playing to win. > Player may also make statements as to the motivations of their actions > that are untrue, in order influence the game. It may be in someones > interest to put another player on "tilt" by suggesting their > motivations are for out of game reasons. This kind of legal play > merely muddies the water when discussing the play in question. > > Further, a player can say she can not win, or get additional VPs, and > thus may lose as they choose- allowing whatever play they wish. Do we > need the lose as you choose clause? Does the game benifit from this > cop-out, or would we be better to insist people play to win for the > entire game? We can't regulate proper play, but by allowing this out > players can justify any action they wish to take. This does lead to problems. Why does a losing player deserve to determine anything outside of the fact that they lose? > In addition it has been ruled that prize support may be taken into > account for deals, self ousting or whatever. This ruling must be > reversed, how is prize support any different from cash, favors, hes my > buddy, I want to get a ride home cause he brought me here. If > anything outside the game, prize support, is introduced as a legal > consideration for in game decisions then the line is blurred. > > It is interesting that prize support can be considered for play, but > tournament position is not allowed to be considered. I can't make > deal for one VP that gets me into the finals, but I an give a guy half > my box of boosters to roll for me. > > Luckily the lastest batch of prize support was such crap that no-one > wanted it and thus deals were not an issue. I am not familiar with the above. > Would like to here specific instances of judges over-ruling actions, > or other pertinent ruling in the past that may not have been posted. I have never seen a judge over-rule any action. I think the vauge 'rules' as you have them are here to stay. I believe that you are understanding them correctly. I suggest that you become annoyed with them for a while, get tired of the lack of results or even admission of a problem, and proceed to not care.

Joshua Duffin expounded: > Section 161, Cheating - Bribery. > > You're right, it's weird and probably not right. I think this > is one of those things that was carried over from the DCI > Magic tournament rules and is probably not appropriate to VTES > tournament play. Very likely. I was talking to a Magic player about this the other day (yes I washed my hands afterwards ;). The reason they allow it is basically that they reckon a large proportion of finalists would do this (privately) anyway and it's unfair on the rest if they aren't allowed to -apparently most Magic tournament finals are resolved this way (only one source so I don't know how true that is but it must be indicative of a lot of it happening). Then again they play for serious amounts of cash (thousands!) as well as qualifying for later (bigger) tournaments. ..I suppose it's a bit like poker -you have to play for money or there's no point. I agree that VTES would be better without it though I have never seen it happen.

> The judge makes whatever arrangements are necessary to minimize the effect > on the remaining players, wether that be an immediate award of a VP (or > some fraction thereof) and/or some amount of pool, or a pile of pool to > "bleed" out, or a proxy player, or whatever. Because I think case-studies are an excellent way to learn, could you give an example of a situation where awarding a fraction of a VP would be the appropriate action? Also, would you ever award a fraction other than 1/2 ? Thanks, LSJ! You rock! Ira

On 15 Oct 2003 09:49:52 -0700, kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) scrawled: >wm...@mail.com (Matt Guinn) wrote in message news:<263773d7.0310...@posting.google.com>... [snip] >> Further, a player can say she can not win, or get additional VPs, and >> thus may lose as they choose- allowing whatever play they wish. Do we >> need the lose as you choose clause? Does the game benifit from this >> cop-out, or would we be better to insist people play to win for the >> entire game? We can't regulate proper play, but by allowing this out >> players can justify any action they wish to take. > >This does lead to problems. Why does a losing player deserve to >determine anything outside of the fact that they lose? Well, if a player is in the 'lose as you choose' state, then they are playing to win. They are trying to get as many more vps as they can. By definition of the state they are in, the maximum number of further vps they can reasonably get is 0. So if they bleed with all they have, they'll get 0 more vps. If they wall up, 0 more vps, if they rush someone because they hate Hesha, they get 0 more vps. So, they are free to 'lose as they choose', because no matter what they do it won't help them get more vps. If there was some course of action that would help them get more vps that they were aware of, then they wouldn't actually be in the 'lose as you choose' state. If you forced them to, say, bleed with everything they had, that would be an advantage to their predator. By the definition of the state they are in, they're not going to be ousting their prey (that would get them a vp). So all they do is make the prey use up some resources, and make it easier for their predator to clean them up. So the predator is advataged. If you forced them to wall up, you give their prey an advantage. The prey gets no pressure for a bit, and the predator has to use extra resources that could otherwise have been used on the next guy to oust the losing player. If you force them to act backwards, it's roughly the same effect as above. Whatever they do or don't do will advantage someone or other more than if they didn't or did do the thing. No one else should be allowed to choose for a player who they give advantage to but that player. Assuming of course they can not reasonably expect to get any more VPs. >> In addition it has been ruled that prize support may be taken into >> account for deals, self ousting or whatever. This ruling must be >> reversed, how is prize support any different from cash, favors, hes my >> buddy, I want to get a ride home cause he brought me here. If >> anything outside the game, prize support, is introduced as a legal >> consideration for in game decisions then the line is blurred. The reasoning I heard was, say in the final some guy offers you half of first prize if you fall down for him so he comes first and you come second, and you were the only two guys left. If you could actually oust him and come first, you'd be getting all of first prize anyway, so you'd never take the deal. So accepting deals based on prizes only hurts the guy offering the deal. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On 15 Oct 2003 19:05:35 -0700, ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] If the game was likely to time out anyway, and the predator, while he had spent a lot of resources trying to oust the leaving player, wasn't guarantee'd of ousting him, but then again wasn't unlikely to, the Judge might award 0.4 (or, really, anything greater than 0 and less than 0.5), so that when the game times out they don't get a full vp (so someone else that did oust someone, and was then ousted, is still better off), but the 0.4 makes them better off than someone who merely stayed in till time. We used to have a rough house rule in social games for people who left mid game: Predator gets 0.5vps, and pool equal to: Max(6 -(leaving player's remaining pool), 0) and the leaving player was no longer part of the game as if he was ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F8D35A3...@white-wolf.com>... > Matt Guinn wrote: > > I have decided to stop lurking and contribute to this wonderful > > resource. > > Virgin poster, be nice. > > > > The majority of VEKN rules are set up to maintain the predator-prey > > relationship, and at the same time requiring players to play to win. > > However, I find that there are very few instances where a judge could > > over-rule a play made by a player. In fact, the only question a judge > > could ask would be, "Are you playing to win?". This is because the > > judge can't possibly have as much knowledge about the game as the > > player. > > Which is why the judge is called upon to use judgment. > True, but the burden of proof is just to high to resolve quesionable actions. Also the dicussion of such actions subjects the offending player to questions that may give away his play, or somehow disadvantage him. The role of the judge is defined well enough, but the requirements of the rule are above the judge's knowledge. There is just too much that cannot be known to a judge. So that leads to unenforcable rules. Not 100%, but many situations will exist where it is impossible for a judge to act correctly- and most judges prefer to not interfere and allow a play or course of action. > > > > If an action were to be disallowed how do you resolve a player leaving > > the table? > > The same way you would if the player had to leave for other reasons > (sudden illness or other emergency, disqualification for other infractions, > etc.) > > > No action can be prohibited if a player "says" she is playing to win. > > Incorrect. NO action may not have been the best term, how about very few actions can be prohibited if a player says she is playing to win. We have had a game of tring to design a senario where a judge would be proper in overruling a play; the only one we came up with invloved one player with no permanents and no deck and one pool vs. a minion with blood and no pre-existing deals.

Matt Guinn <wm...@mail.com> wrote: > I have decided to stop lurking and contribute to this wonderful > resource. Virgin poster, be nice. Nice to have you here. Try not to have a thin skin. :) [snip large discussion I'm not interested in] Since it seems that I've made this issue my personal crusade, I have to comment. > In addition it has been ruled that prize support may be taken into > account for deals, self ousting or whatever. It is *part* of the rules, yes. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html [VEKN JG 161] > This ruling must be reversed, No. > how is prize support any different from > cash, favors, hes my buddy, I want to > get a ride home cause he brought me here. Because ***they aren't part of the game***. > If anything outside the game, prize support, is introduced as a > legal consideration for in game decisions then the line is blurred. Since introducing something from outside the game into an in-game deal can NEVER happen, you have nothing to worry about. > It is interesting that prize support can be considered for play, but > tournament position is not allowed to be considered. I can't make > deal for one VP that gets me into the finals, Introducing something from outside the game -- position within, or ability to make the finals, for example -- into an in-game deal is ILLEGAL. How hard is this to understand? > but I an give a guy half my box of boosters to roll for me. Assuming you and he don't violate the play to win rule, of course. I'll guarantee you this: I won't LET you make a deal for prizes in the finals when the player receiving (some of) the prizes has the ability to get more VPs. > Luckily the lastest batch of prize support was such crap that no-one > wanted it and thus deals were not an issue. So you'd like future prize support to continue to be crap? Interesting. > Would like to hear specific instances of judges over-ruling actions, > or other pertinent ruling in the past that may not have been posted. I've never had to enforce anyone to "play to win" at any tournament I've ever judged. > Thanks for the time, Thanks for posting! :) > Matt Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

salem expounded: > >> In addition it has been ruled that prize support may be taken into > >> account for deals, self ousting or whatever. This ruling must be > >> reversed, how is prize support any different from cash, favors, hes my > >> buddy, I want to get a ride home cause he brought me here. If > >> anything outside the game, prize support, is introduced as a legal > >> consideration for in game decisions then the line is blurred. > > The reasoning I heard was, say in the final some guy offers you half > of first prize if you fall down for him so he comes first and you come > second, and you were the only two guys left. If you could actually > oust him and come first, you'd be getting all of first prize anyway, > so you'd never take the deal. > So accepting deals based on prizes only hurts the guy offering the > deal. Consider this: 3 Players still in. One of them can't win but can kingmake.

Kevin M. expounded: > > It is interesting that prize support can be considered for play, but > > tournament position is not allowed to be considered. I can't make > > deal for one VP that gets me into the finals, > > Introducing something from outside the game -- position within, or ability > to make the finals, for example -- into an in-game deal is ILLEGAL. How > hard is this to understand? except that you can introduce something from outside the game: the prizes PRIZES ARE NOT PART OF THE GAME (except by arbitrary dictat in the rules). They are if anything less a part of the game that tournament position is!

> The reasoning I heard was, say in the final some guy offers you half > of first prize if you fall down for him so he comes first and you come > second, and you were the only two guys left. If you could actually > oust him and come first, you'd be getting all of first prize anyway, > so you'd never take the deal. > So accepting deals based on prizes only hurts the guy offering the > deal. In a final with two players left, yes. That's why i don't bother about prize splitting as much unsportsmanlike behaviour. For me, it's thematically appropriate for two players to agree on not attacking each other if they fall on the same table until they are the two left, so they can try to make it easier for the two to get VPs, fight for the GW and split the prize. This kind of behaviour does not entirely disrupt the table since any deck should be prepared for a predator who's got free reign anyway - this could always happen in a "normal", no-deal-made table. What I do hate though is a player actively disrupting the mood - say, predator and prey are friends, play with the same collection of cards and not only the predator does not attack its prey, but the prey blocks/denials/disrupt anything cross-table just to prevent its predator from being ousted with no reason other than to guarantee that his predator friend will stay alive. I now there are some situations where it's for the best interest - like preventing anyone to get potencial VPs you'll need, or having a new predator who is very likely to be capable of ousting you - but most of these situations arise late in the game, and most judges could snapshot them very easily. For the record, I'm bitching a little bit since it never happened to me until the last tournament I've played. Maybe I'll get used to it, but I gotta say that I find VEKN rules to be most accurate and understable. What I do not have the luck to see is competent judges (sometimes no judges at all, just "time guardians"). If something is to be changed, is not about prize splitting or stating what is a "reasonable chance" to make VPs. Should be some way of enforcing multi-judge system.

Ira wrote: >>The judge makes whatever arrangements are necessary to minimize the effect >>on the remaining players, wether that be an immediate award of a VP (or >>some fraction thereof) and/or some amount of pool, or a pile of pool to >>"bleed" out, or a proxy player, or whatever. > > > Because I think case-studies are an excellent way to learn, could you > give an example of a situation where awarding a fraction of a VP would > be the appropriate action? If proxy-players aren't logistically feasible and the predator of the ejected player had some non-zero chance of ousting the ejected player. > Also, would you ever award a fraction > other than 1/2 ? Sure, if warranted. > > Thanks, LSJ! You rock! > > Ira -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:ADsjb.28300$Rd4.7167@fed1read07... > Matt Guinn <wm...@mail.com> wrote: > > I have decided to stop lurking and contribute to this wonderful > > resource. Virgin poster, be nice. > [snip large discussion [Kevin's] not interested in] > > Since it seems that I've made this issue my personal crusade, I have to > comment. I thought your personal crusade was that a "reasonable" chance of winning is more like 30% than 5%. ;-) > > but I can give a guy half my box of boosters to roll for me. > > Assuming you and he don't violate the play to win rule, of course. I'll > guarantee you this: I won't LET you make a deal for prizes in the finals > when the player receiving (some of) the prizes has the ability to get more > VPs. Doesn't the "Cheating - Bribery" section imply that the "play to win" rule is overridden by prize-splitting deals? ----------------------------------------------------------------- 161. Cheating - Bribery Definition: A player attempts to bribe an opponent into changing the results of a game by offering inducements outside of the current game. Example: A player offers an opponent cash or cards to throw a game. Philosophy: Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria: * No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.) * All players involved in all affected games agree on the outcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------ If that doesn't mean that it's okay to agree to "change the results of a game" based on a prize-split offer, what *does* it mean? It can't very logically be talking about, for example, all the players in a finals match agreeing to split the prizes evenly regardless of how the VPs end up, because that couldn't possibly fall under the "Cheating - Bribery" category, since no one would be trying to alter the results of the game. That is, if this exemption isn't about agreeing to alter the results of the game, why is it included in the section on what would otherwise be "Cheating - Bribery"? Josh playing devil's advocate (?)

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> expounded: >> Matt Guinn <wm...@mail.com> wrote: >> > It is interesting that prize support can be considered for play, >> > but tournament position is not allowed to be considered. >> > I can't make a deal for one VP that gets me into the finals, >> >> Introducing something from outside the game -- position within, or >> ability to make the finals, for example -- into an in-game deal is >> ILLEGAL. How hard is this to understand? > > except that you can introduce something from outside the game: the > prizes ARE NOT PART OF THE GAME (except by arbitrary dictat > in the rules). Attempting to state that the prizes which are to be awarded to each finalist -- which were known at the beginning of the tournament AS PART OF THE FINAL ROUND OF THE TOURNAMENT -- are not part of the final round is Just Plain Stupid(TM). If you wish to keep evading reality in order to force it (and us) to conform to your insane ideas, then feel free to destroy yourself at your own leisure. This conversation is officially over. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:51:50 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Ira wrote: >>>The judge makes whatever arrangements are necessary to minimize the effect >>>on the remaining players, wether that be an immediate award of a VP (or >>>some fraction thereof) and/or some amount of pool, or a pile of pool to >>>"bleed" out, or a proxy player, or whatever. >> >> >> Because I think case-studies are an excellent way to learn, could you >> give an example of a situation where awarding a fraction of a VP would >> be the appropriate action? > >If proxy-players aren't logistically feasible and the predator of >the ejected player had some non-zero chance of ousting the ejected >player. So just to get this right, a proxy player is someone who sits down and plays the deck of the ejected player? I presume this can't be instigated where a player is removed between rounds? Also, I guess it's not 'logistically feasible' to bring in a proxy player if the ejected player wants to pack up all his cards and go home? Unless, i guess, his library was empty and the judge whipped up some proxies of all his cards in play/hand.... [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Oct 2003 04:29:58 -0700, fa...@cohesp.com.br (the_capuchin) scrawled: [snip blatant unsportsmanlike behaviour] I agree that if a player is playing to help his buddy purely because he's his buddy, for no in game reason, then that's bad. >For the record, I'm bitching a little bit since it never happened to >me until the last tournament I've played. Maybe I'll get used to it, >but I gotta say that I find VEKN rules to be most accurate and >understable. What I do not have the luck to see is competent judges >(sometimes no judges at all, just "time guardians"). If something is >to be changed, is not about prize splitting or stating what is a >"reasonable chance" to make VPs. Should be some way of enforcing >multi-judge system. At each tournament you're at, ask who the head judge is. Ask that he/she actually judge. call the judge over to ask things like how much time is left, and maybe ask them things like 'what's the latest text for this card again? i'm pretty sure it does X but i just want to be sure'. Let them know you want to play in a judged environment, not because you're a rules nut, but because you just like to have a judge around to catch the occasional slip up and preserve the integrity of the game. Make it look like you want a judge around to stop yourself from messing up, so the other players don't feel victimised. Also, repeatedly mention the bit where penalties cannot be waived even if all players at a table agree. Not many people seem to appreciate that, and so if there is one dissenter he is pressured into waiving with the rest of the table. This should not be allowed. Say things like 'i'd love to let you get a pool for the edge during your minion phase, but it's just not allowed. I could get cautioned for trying to let you do it. sorry. even if we all want you to get that pool, the judge would never let it happen......where is that judge, anyway?' If blatant buddy-helping is still going on, or any unsportsmanlike behaviour at all, or rules infringements with no repurcussions ('that's the 5th time you've replaced Read the Winds as soon as you've played it. Judge! Judge? how much of your library do you want to look at?' 'sorry...anyway, i'd better play this Inner Essence..oh look, i drew a Horrid Form. how lucky....again...') try and find your tournament on the vekn tournament calendar. If the head judge isn't actually doing any judging, it might be worth mentioning your concern to the Powers That Be, citing as many relevant details about the tournament and the situations as possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. expounded: > Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> expounded: > >> Matt Guinn <wm...@mail.com> wrote: > >> > It is interesting that prize support can be considered for play, > >> > but tournament position is not allowed to be considered. > >> > I can't make a deal for one VP that gets me into the finals, > >> > >> Introducing something from outside the game -- position within, or > >> ability to make the finals, for example -- into an in-game deal is > >> ILLEGAL. How hard is this to understand? > > > > except that you can introduce something from outside the game: the > > prizes ARE NOT PART OF THE GAME (except by arbitrary dictat > > in the rules). > > Attempting to state that the prizes which are to be awarded to each > finalist -- which were known at the beginning of the tournament AS PART OF > THE FINAL ROUND OF THE TOURNAMENT -- are not part of the final round is Just > Plain Stupid(TM). No not at part of the final round -*after* the final round. You get a prize for winning (/doing well). By definition you have already won when you get it therefore it cannot be part of the game. See the thread on when the game ends in a turn (immediately when the last opponent loses their last pool: NOT after you have suffered just one more effect) if you are still confused.

salem wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:51:50 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > scrawled: >>If proxy-players aren't logistically feasible and the predator of >>the ejected player had some non-zero chance of ousting the ejected >>player. > > So just to get this right, a proxy player is someone who sits down and > plays the deck of the ejected player? Yes. (Or a proxy-ed up copy of that deck - ugh!) > I presume this can't be instigated where a player is removed between > rounds? Right. Although, I suppose, you could install a proxy-player if you have a 12-player tournament and one drops after the first round. > Also, I guess it's not 'logistically feasible' to bring in a proxy > player if the ejected player wants to pack up all his cards and go > home? > Unless, i guess, his library was empty and the judge whipped up some > proxies of all his cards in play/hand.... Right. "Feasible" is left to the judge. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]